Author | Cut-off value (variable, value and unit) | Liver failure vs. no liver failure (mean or median, p value) | Key diagnostic characteristics | Univariate predictive regression analysis (impact, p value) | Multivariate predictive regression analysis (impact, p value) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Chapelle et al. [19] | eFLRF, 2.3 (%/min/m2) | 2.2 vs. 4.7 (p < 0.001) | Sens 92%, spec 98%, PPV 92%, NPV 99% | For eFLRF < 2.3: OR 836 (p < 0.001) | NR (p = 0.001) |
TLF, NR (%/min)1 | 5.0 vs. 6.2 (p = 0.020) | NR | NR (p = 0.027) | NR (NS) | |
Chapelle et al. [21] | eFLRF, 2.3 (%/min/m2) | 3.3 vs. 8.4 (p < 0.001) | AUC 0.843 | NR (NR) | OR 0.35 (p = 0.002) |
HBSBSA, NR (%/min)1 | 5.5 vs. 6.1 (p = 0.057) | AUC 0.652 | NR (NR) | NR (NR) | |
Chiba et al. [18] | Remnant liver LU 15, 13 | NR (NR) | NR | Cont. LU 15: OR 0.92 (NS)2 rLU 15 < 13: OR 81.8 (p < 0.001)2 | Cont.: NR (NR)2 rLU 15 < 13: OR 67.7 (p < 0.001)2 |
Total liver LU 15, NR | NR (NR) | NR | OR 0.97 (NS) | NR (NR) | |
LHL15, NR | NR (NR) | NR | OR 0.04 (NS) | NR (NR) | |
HH15, NR | NR (NR) | NR | OR 0.07 (NS) | NR (NR) | |
Cho et al. [22] | SUVmean, 2.4 | 2.1 vs. 2.3 (NS) | Sens 100%, spec 32%, PPV 7%, NPV 100% | For SUVmean ≤ 2.4: OR 7.0 (NS) | NR (NR) |
TLGr, 625.6 | 1067 vs. 1491 (NS) | Sens 57%, spec 97%, PPV 44%, NPV 98% | For TLGr ≤ 625.6: OR 36.5 (p < 0.001) | For TLGr ≤625.6: OR 82.9 (p < 0.001) | |
de Graaf et al. [10] | FRL-F, 2.69 (%/min/m2) | 2.2 vs. 4.3 (p = 0.001) | Sens 89%, spec 87%, PPV 57%, NPV 98% | NR (NR) | NR (NR) |
Dinant et al. [24] | FRL-uptake, 2.5 (%/min/BSA) | 2.3 vs. 4.3 (p = 0.003) | Sens 83%, spec 90%, PPV 56%, NPV 97% | NR (p = 0.01) | OR 4.0 (p = 0.03) |
Hayashi et al. [28] | Marginal FR function, NR (%) | NR (NR) | NR | For marginal FR function vs. safe FR function: OR 11.0 (p = 0.001) | NR (NR) |
Hirai et al. [30] | [99mTc]Tc-GSA uptake, 25% of non-embolized liver | 10.0% vs. 25.8% (p = 0.02)3 | Sens 50%, spec 94% | NR (NR) | NR (NR) |
Hwang et al. [31] | Predicted, residual [99mTc]Tc-GSA-clearance, NR (mL/min) | 90 vs. 321 (p < 0.005) | NR | NR (NR) | NR (NR) |
Total [99mTc]Tc-GSA-clearance, NR (mL/min) | 315 vs. 567 (NS) | NR | NR (NR) | NR (NR) | |
Kaibori et al. [34] | HA/GSA-Rmax ratio, 500 (mg min/dl) | NR (p < 0.0001)4 | Sens 88%, spec 92%, PPV 50%, NPV 99% | For HA/GSA-Rmax ratio ≥ 500: OR 21.5 (p < 0.0001) | For HA/GSA-Rmax ratio ≥ 500: OR 23.6 (p = 0.0138) |
GSA-Rmax, 0.475 (mg/min) | NR (p = 0.0016)4 | NR | For GSA-Rmax < 0.475: OR 8.1 (p = 0.0066) | For GSA-Rmax < 0.475: OR 0.2 (NS) | |
Type IV collagen 7S/GSA-Rmax, 15 (mg min/dL) | NR (p < 0.0001)4 | NR | For Type IV collagen 7S/GSA-Rmax ≥ 15: OR 18.1 (p = 0.0056) | For Type IV collagen 7S/GSA-Rmax ≥ 15: OR 7.7 (NS) | |
Kato et al. [36] | LHL15, NR | 0.90 vs. 0.92 (p = 0.006) | AUC 0.68 | NR (NR) | Per 0.1-unit increment: OR 0.24 (p = 0.046) |
HH15, NR | 0.66 vs. 0.63 (NS) | NR | NR (NR) | NR (NR) | |
GSA-Rmax, NR | 0.61 vs. 0.71 (p = 0.03) | AUC 0.62 | NR (NR) | Per 0.1-unit increment: OR 0.81 (NS) | |
rERL-GSA, NR | 0.53 vs. 0.60 (NS) | AUC 0.62 | NR (NR) | NR (NR) | |
ERL-LHL15, NR | 0.48 vs. 0.55 (p = 0.04) | AUC 0.64 | NR (NR) | NR (NR) | |
ERL-Rmax, NR5 | 0.33 vs. 0.41 (p = 0.004) | AUC 0.66 | NR (NR) | NR (NR) | |
Kim et al. ≠ [39] | LHL15, 0.91 | 0.85 vs. 0.94.(p < 0.0001) | NR | NR (NR) | NR (p < 0.0001) |
Kokudo et al. [40]6 | R0-remnant, 0.16 (μmoles) | 0.015 vs. 0.024 (p = 0.011) | NR | NR (NR) | Per 0.01 μmoles increment: HR 0.82 (p = 0.022) |
LHL15, NR | 0.89 vs. 0.93 (p = 0.025) | NR | NR (NR) | NR (NS) | |
HH15, NR | 0.58 vs. 0.52 (NS) | NR | NR (NR) | NR (NR) | |
R0, NR (μmole) | 0.14 vs. 0.18 (p = 0.038) | NR | NR (NR) | NR (NS) | |
[R]0, NR (μM) | 0.63 vs. 0.70 (NS) | NR | NR (NR) | NR (NR) | |
Mao et al. [48] | Uptake index, 0.97 | NR (NR) | Sens 100%, spec 92% | NR (NR) | NR (NR) |
Nakamura et al. [50] | LHL15, NR | 0.875 vs. 0.903 (p = 0.015) | NR | NR (NR) | OR 1.32 (NS) |
Remnant LHL15, 0.755 | 0.739 vs. 0.791 (p = 0.009) | NR | NR (NR) | OR 0.03 (p = 0.023) | |
Nakano et al. ≠ [51] | GSA-Rmax, 0.60 | NR (NS) | NR | NR (NR) | NR (NS) |
Nanashima et al. ≠ [54] | LHL15, 0.875 | NR (p < 0.001)4 | NR | NR (NR) | NR (NR) |
Nanashima et al. ≠ [55] | LHL15, 0.85 | 91.1 vs. 93.1 (p = 0.014) | NR | NR (NR) | For LHL15 < 0.85 vs. ≥ 0.85: OR 1.4 (NS) |
Nanashima et al. ≠ [56] | LHL15, 0.85 | 92.2 vs. 95.2 (p = 0.021) | NR | For LHL15 < 0.85 vs. ≥ 0.85: OR 5.1 (p = 0.022) | For LHL15 < 0.85 vs. ≥ 0.85: OR 3.8 (NS) |
Nanashima et al. ≠ [57] | LHL15, 0.90 | 0.89 vs. 0.92 (p = 0.015) | NR | NR (NR) | For LHL15 < 0.90 vs. ≥ 0.90: OR 2.7 (NS) (LF) |
HH15, 0.60 (Y values of regression equation for LF only, 7.2) | 0.61 vs. 0.58 (p < 0.01) | NR | NR (NR) | For HH15 ≥ 0.60 vs. < 0.60: OR 3.3 (p = 0.045) (LF) | |
LHL15/HH15, 1.60 | 1.53 vs. 1.64 (p < 0.01) | NR | NR (NR) | For LHL15/HH15 < 1.60 vs. ≥ 1.60: OR 0.9 (NS) (LF) | |
Nanashima et al. [59] | LHL15/HH15, NR | 1.52 vs. 1.64 (NS) | NR | NR (NR) | NR (NR) |
LHL15 minus HH15, NR | 31.0 vs. 34.6 (NS) | NR | NR (NR) | NR (NR) | |
Nitta et al. [62] | Fvo-0%, marginal function8 | NR (p = 0.031)4 | C-index ≈ 0.67 | NR (NR) | NR (NS) |
Fvo-40%, marginal function8 | NR (p = 0.031)4 | C-index = 0.737 | NR (NR) | For marginal vs. safe function: OR 9.0 (p = 0.002) | |
Fvo-100%, marginal function8 | NR (p = 0.013)4 | C-index ≈ 0.65 | NR (NR) | NR (NS) | |
Okabe et al. [64] | LHL15, 0.939 | 0.92 vs. 0.93 (p = 0.0027) | Sens 88%, spec 96% | NR (NR) | For LHL15 ≤ 0.93: OR 7.4 (p = 0.0082) |
HH15, NR9 | 0.66 vs. 0.58 (p = 0.0041) | NR | NR (NR) | NR (NR) | |
Olthof et al. [65] | Total liver function, NR (%/min) | 14.6 vs. 16.2 (p = 0.41) | NR | NR (NR) | NR (NR) |
FLR function, NR (%) | 44.7 vs. 63.4 (p < 0.01) | AUC 0.68 | NR (NR) | NR (NR) | |
FLR function, 8.5 (%/min) (new cut-off) | 5.6 vs. 8.7 (p < 0.01) | PPV 36%, NPV 91% (new cut-off)10 AUC 0.69 | For FLR function < 8.5: OR 5.4 (p < 0.01) | For FLR function < 8.5: OR 4.1 (p < 0.01) | |
sFLR function, 2.7 (%/min/m2) (predefined cut-off) | 3.1 vs. 4.7 (p < 0.01) | PPV 38%, NPV 82% (pre-defined cut-off)10 AUC 0.68 | NR (NR) | NR (NR) | |
Rassam et al. ≠ [67] | FRL function, 2.7 (%/min/m2) (predefined cut-off) | NR (NS) | NR | NR (NR) | NR (NR) |
MUR NR (%/min) | NR (NS) | NR | NR (NR) | NR (NR) | |
Satoh et al. ≠ [68] | PRI, 0.38 | NR (NR) | PPV 71%, NPV 100% | NR (NR) | NR (NR) |
Serenari et al. [69] | FLR-C, 34.5 (%) | 30 vs. 41 (p = 0.011) | Sens 100%, spec 82%, PPV 50%, NPV 100% | NR (NR) | NR (NR) |
FLR-F, 1.69 (%/min/m2) | 0.94 vs. 2.07 (p = 0.011) | Sens 100%, spec 75%, PPV 50%, NPV 100% | NR (NR) | NR (NR) | |
HIBA-i, 14.94 (%) | 12.86 vs. 23.29 (p = 0.001) | Sens 100%, spec 94%, PPV 80%, NPV 100% | NR (NR) | NR (NR) | |
Serenari et al. [70] | FRL-F, NR (%/min/m2) | 1.72 vs. 4.02 (NR) | NR | NR (NR) | NR (NR) |
Sugai et al. ≠ [73] | LUR/ LUR response rate, NR (%/%) | NR (NS) / NR (NS)11 | NR | NR (NR) | NR (NR) |
FV / FV response rate, NR (cm3/%) | NR (NS)/NR (NS)11 | NR | NR (NR) | NR (NR) | |
LUD/LUD response rate, NR (%/cm3/%) | 0.035 vs. 0.064 (p < 0.05)/− 8.9 vs. 22.2 (p < 0.01)11 | NR | NR (NR) | NR (NR) | |
Sumiyoshi et al. ≠ [74] | remKGSA, 0.05 | NR (p < 0.02) | NR | NR (NR) | NR (NR) |
KGSA, NR | NR (NS) | NR | NR (NR) | NR (NR) | |
Tanaka et al. [79] | LHL15, NR | NR (NR) | NR | NR (p < 0.001) | NR (NR) |
GSA-index, NR | NR (NR) | NR | NR (p = 0.001) | NR (NR) | |
Remnant VLmg, NR | NR (NR) | NR | NR (p = 0.001) | NR (NR) | |
Tanoue et al. [81] | GSA-Rmax, NR (mg/min) | 0.479 vs. 0.501 (NS) | NR | NR (NR) | NR (NR) |
rGSA-Rmax, NR (mg/min) | 0.319 vs. 0.374 (p = 0.032) | NR | NR (NR) | NR (NR) | |
Difference between GSA-Rmax and rGSA-Rmax, NR (mg/min) | 0.160 vs. 0.127 (NS) | NR | NR (NR) | NR (NR) | |
rGSA-Rmax/GSA-Rmax, NR | 0.692 vs. 0.756 (p = 0.042) | NR | NR (NR) | NR (NR) | |
Yano et al. [88] | GSA-Rmax, NR (mg/min) | 0.432 vs. 0.453 (NS) | NR | NR (NR) | NR (NR) |
Yoshida et al. [90] | rLUV(BSA), 27.0%/BSA | 23.0 vs 33.6 (p < 0.001)12 | Sens 91%, spec 81%, PPV 31%, NPV 99% | NR (NR) | NR (p < 0.001) |
HH15, NR | 0.64 vs. 0.60 (p < 0.05)12 | NR | NR (NR) | NR (NS) | |
LHL15, NR | 0.90 vs. 0.91 (NS)12 | NR | NR (NR) | NR (NR) | |
% remnant LF, NR (%) | 60.9 vs. 75.3 (p < 0.001)12 | NR | NR (NR) | NR (NS) | |
Yumoto et al. [93] | R0-remnant, 100 (nmol/liver) | 62.1 vs. 122.2 (p < 0.001) | AUC 0.97 | NR (NR) | NR (NR) |
[R]0, NR (nmol/l) | 412 vs. 551 (p = 0.045) | AUC 0.80 | NR (NR) | NR (NR) | |
R0, NR (nmol/liver) | 149.8 vs. 211.2 (p = 0.047) | NR | NR (NR) | NR (NR) | |
LHL15, NR | 0.79 vs. 0.87 (p = 0.035) | AUC 0.74 | NR (NR) | NR (NR) |